• To: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>
• Subject: Re: Supporting Unicode (was Some comments on the 1.1 draft)
• From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
• Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 05:54:17 -0500 (EST)
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <013a01c18916$5af165a0$4bc8a8c0@A...> from Rick Jelliffeat "Dec 20, 2001 04:22:45 pm"

Rick Jelliffe scripsit:

> That makes it clear that control characters are unlike other characters,
> for which Unicode provides "semantics". The only C0 or C1 characters for
> which Unicode provides "semantics" are TAB, CR, LF and NEL.

XML already, however, allows the use of undefined codepoints, which have
far less semantics than the C0 controls.  And a good thing too, or 
Ethiopic and Thaana and Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics would be totally
locked out of XML (they are post-Unicode-2.0) instead of merely
banned in XML names.

-- 
John Cowan           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              cowan@c...
Please leave your values        |       Check your assumptions.  In fact,
   at the front desk.           |          check your assumptions at the door.
     --sign in Paris hotel      |            --Miles Vorkosigan

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Supporting Unicode (was Some comments on the 1.1 draft)
    • From: "Peter S. Housel" <housel@h...>

• References:
  • Supporting Unicode (was Some comments on the 1.1 draft)
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: RE: embedded html
• Next by Date: RE: embedded html
• Previous by thread: Supporting Unicode (was Some comments on the 1.1 draft)
• Next by thread: Re: Supporting Unicode (was Some comments on the 1.1 draft)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread